In my mid 30's, living in New Orleans at the time, I purchased my first pair of high fidelity loudspeakers, B&W matrix 802's. I have had a long term love-hate relationship with these speakers. I love thier dynamics and solid base but have always been bothered by a tilt toward the higher frequencys and an upper midrange glare I was unable to banish with ancillary equipment. After much deliberation I recently purchased a pair of Vandersteen 3A signatures. As promised these speakers are smooth and warm, without a hint of midrange glare. With jazz or classical music they sound beautiful and I initially thought I had solved my speaker problem. That is until I queued up rock and roll. The highs and mids still sounded wonderful, but the bass was hugely disappointing. Flaccid, aneimic, distant, without any drive or authority. My wife, who could not care less about high end audio, commented, "they sound a little flat", and "they don't have the same power".

I live in Maine where there is little opportunity to audition equipment. My question is are there any speakers that have both the smooth treble and midrange of Vandersteen and the excellent bass of B&W?

Hi, is keeping your Vandersteens and adding a sub an option? I've owned the 2ce sig and they didn't offend regarding bass in my room. Maybe you just need a foundation that a sub would give you. I've recently discovered my speakers that play in the 30's benefit from a sub- helped the bottom end as well as soundstage.

Many swear by the Vandersteen subs for music - although I've not heard them.

From my experience, the positioning of my 2ce sigs changed the balance considerably. Have you done a bit of experimenting with the speaker tilt and positioning in general? (My apologies if you've exhausted this route)

Something's not right. I had both of those speakers and if the bass is better on the B&W's, you probably have an issue somewhere in the system. Since there can be any number of reasons for the poor performance, here's 3 links to the best Vandersteen setup instructions available. To go back and forth trying to diagnose your system may take a considerable amount time. If you go through this info and still have a problem, it will be much easier to help you because you'll have already eliminated many potential problems.

+1 Something’s not right. 3A Sigs with anemic bass? Less air and just a bit loose would be my expectation in comparison. Both speakers play well with the right set-up and equipment. If not, the Vandersteens may bore and the B&W’s may glare/sizzle. I can't imagine them working interchangeably in the same system.

"From my experience, the positioning of my 2ce sigs changed the balance considerably. Have you done a bit of experimenting with the speaker tilt and positioning in general? (My apologies if you've exhausted this route)"

Ultimately, you should do what sounds best, but I would highly recommend using the formula they give you in the owners manual. Once you have them in place, then deal with any problems. Issues are much easier to fix if you start from the proper position.

Subwoofer(s) is an option of course. But when you get a chance, listen to the Vandersteen 5A. Bass is excellent, and you’d keep the Vandersteen sound, which you prefer (for good reason) to the B&W house sound.

I had the same problem with my Vandersteen 3A speakers, anemic bass. The bass in my Vandersteen 2ce signatures was much better. If you want great bass, go with a pair of Golden Ear Triton series. Their powered woofers are great and rock sounds absolutely amazing on them.

A pair of Vandy subs should give you what you need. I ran the 3a sigs with a pair of 2w subs, even without 'q', it was amazing.Can you tell us what your other equipment is? It may help in diagnosing your 'anemic' sound.I just bought a pair of Treo's, mostly because they fit my room better, and am still using the 2w's- I am in heaven.Bob

Everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion, but any time there is an issue with the bass, subwoofer recommendations seem to be plentiful regardless of the scenario. Looking at basic specifications of the two speakers in question,

Since the 3A's are 6 ohm that makes their 1 watt sensitivity ~85.5db compared to the 1 watt sensitivity of the 802's being 90db. With the 3A's going deeper in the bass but with a much lower sensitivity, I'm thinking the issue is power, but can only guess not knowing the amp being used. Also, having experience with both speakers, I do somewhat agree with this comment,

"Both speakers play well with the right set-up and equipment. If not, the Vandersteens may bore and the B&W’s may glare/sizzle. I can't imagine them working interchangeably in the same system."

I have 3A Sigs driven by a NAD S200 (225w/channel into 8 ohms and it close to doubles into 4 ohms). I would never think to comment that these speakers are bass shy or anemic in any sense. A room/placement problem is often to blame for bass issues, but I have found those issues are better solved with a pair of Vandersteen subs than by moving your speakers in a way that improves bass to the detriment of other things. Just my $0.02.

Tls49 if you go to the actual owners manual you will see the 802 speaker specs with the BAF.

frequency range 22k -25k ± 6dbfrequency response 27k - 20k ± 2db

All matrix series 2 and 3 models were designed by John Bowers to be used with the BAF for fuller range.

Tls49

Everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion, but any time there is an issue with the bass, subwoofer recommendations seem to be plentiful regardless of the scenario.

Subwoofers are certainly all the rage these days. :^)One can go ahead and EQ with a subwoofer, sure.... or in this case with this 802 speaker, you can just EQ them with the BAF, as they were designed this way to be more full range...... for those needing / wanting it. The BAF also keeps the impedance more linear making them more amp friendly.

Yes, I have knowledge of the BAF, however the vast majority of Matrix 802’s are being used without one. This was an optional piece sold separately. The specs I cited are straight from a B&W brochure. I agree that if he is using a BAF, my comment is irrelevant, however I seriously doubt he is using one. In that case I stand behind my original comment.

"Subwoofers are certainly all the rage these days."

Yes, but that doesn’t mean that any bass issue can be solved by adding one."

As I said, everyone is entitled to their opinion, however due to his comment,

"Flaccid, aneimic, distant, without any drive or authority."

I see this as a power issue. The 3A’s go fairly deep, but with inadequate power would have no punch, drive, or authority and what was adequate for the B&W may not be enough for the 3A's due to the much lower sensitivity.

Have Vandersteen 2ce signatures and have had B&W Matrix 802's and 805's the B&W's made my ears bleed. The Vandies are a far better all round speaker IMO. Never had any complaint regarding any aspects regarding the sound they go low and the bass is always tight and detailed never intrudes into the mid's like a lot of speakers are inclined to do.they do however like to be well out into the room, the tilt is important.Once set up properly they positively sing, get it wrong they sound mediocre.

Have been very happy with the Vandersteens ; now comes the rub have now found some speakers that seem to my ears at least, to have the best of all worlds. Same sound signature it is very similar to the Vandersteens ; not boxy, sweet and 3 dimensional.Bob Crites Cornscala 'D' - Tighter faster deeper bass than the Vandersteens and as sweet on the tops. The tops are more extended and the detail is all there and the decays are much more extended.They are seamless and the bass is not muddy boomy and never intrudes into the mids.Built them, they sound just great do everything well do not cost much, are super sensitive, very quite not a hint of hum or hiss on all 3 of my valve amps.They do all music well, Opera, Classical Baroque, voices male and female plus rock music sounds like you are attending a concert what more could you ask. Bad recordings, including the dreaded loudness mash are now listenable and sound as good as possible. They realy rock, go down low, are super quick and tight, no fatiguing and sweet.Very pleased, they are big and ugly granted that being said they certainly sound better and are more easy to live with than speakers I have heard (at least to my ears) to date costing 6 times and in a lot of cases a hell of a lot more.

"I see this as a power issue. The 3A’s go fairly deep, but with inadequate power would have no punch, drive, or authority and what was adequate for the B&W may not be enough for the 3A's due to the much lower sensitivity."

You need to go beyond the specs in this case. I've had both of those speakers at the same time, same room and same system. Neither speaker is really easy to drive, or difficult for that matter. I found them to be about the same. Sonically, the 2 speakers are different. The highs on the B&W's can be very harsh and fatiguing, and the bass is fairly lean. The bass on the Vandersteen's are in a completely different league, while the mids and highs are neutral. If you want them more laid back, pair them with electronics that have those qualities. Or you can go the other direction. That's why if you read the OP's description, I think there's a really good chance something's wrong.